- Framework of problems / Transparent
- Methods not described to enable replication
- Systematic review search strategies are poorly reported and not reproducible: a cross-sectional meta-research study
Ref ID | 936 |
First Author | M. L. Rethlefsen |
Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
Year Of Publishing | 2023 |
URL | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435623003190?via%3Dihub |
Keywords |
Open data General medical Searching Non-Cochrane reviews |
Problem(s) |
Methods not described to enable replication Insufficient literature searches |
Number of systematic reviews included | 100 |
Summary of Findings | From a random sample of 100 biomedical systematic reviews indexed in MEDLINE in November 2021, the reproducibility of search strategies (PRISMA-S). The included 100 systematic reviews contained 453 database searches. Of those, complete database information, including naming the database and platform (PRISMA-S item 1), was available for 47.2% (214/453) (Table 1). Only 4.9% (22/453) database searches clearly reported all six PRISMA-S items. Least commonly reported were item 9, limits and restrictions, and item 13, dates of searches. Limits and restrictions were fully reported for 22.1% (100/453) of database searches, and the exact date of the search was provided for 22.7% (103/453) database searches. |
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Not Applicable |
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |